The gap between theoretical arguments and lived reality

[muscovyduck]

I think most people self identify their race and it seems to be a system that works pretty well. There's been a few anomalies, literally a handful we've heard about, so much like the op discusses it's not something that's ever likely to affect the vast majority of people's lives and self identification is probably a better bet then state approved ethnicities. Anyway fair enough you're out, just wanted to answer that.

There's the concept of plastic paddys, lots of fraught conversations about whether someone born in the states can call themselves Irish, or with other ethnicities for example whether someone of mixed heritage in the USA can call themselves Native American and where the cut off for that is. And usually the theoretical arguments point towards some other underlying issue and don't reflect the lived reality.

Eg accusations of "not really being Irish" in my experience tend to come from English people who are a bit jealous someone's participating in a culture that doesn't centre them. Or sometimes from other Irish people who are feeling insecure about that culture being watered down or worried about being drowned out by a few shouty voices. And in my generation young enough to not really remember the troubles there's not this understanding of the fact an Irish person living somewhere like England went through struggles (and still goes through struggles) someone who lived out their life out 'back home' didn't have to deal with, so someone who is from Ireland saying someone who is not from Ireland isn't Irish isn't necessarily the trump card they think it is. Because being Irish means different but overlapping things. But none of that means the notion of a plastic paddy is null and void, lived experience tells us it's definitely there. Just not in the way it's presented when there's some nasty gossiping going on in student halls or someone's posting outrage fuel on reddit.

It does feel similar to the gender/sex stuff, I think we live in a world that increasingly can't accept fluidity and ambiguity. Does calling someone Irish mean they can't call themselves English? I'm mixed heritage but it doesn't feel like I'm 50/50, it feels like I have two heritages where other people have one (and other people have more). Like the difference between whether someone has two part time jobs that split nicely into a 36 hour week or a full time day job and a bar job. But I try not to talk about it irl because a bit like the anti-trans stuff, a lot of the conversation is loaded and a bit unpleasant.

I'm just glad no one thinks the solution is announcing my "preferred ethnicity" in public all the time, because I'm cis and seeing the expectation for me to start announcing my gender all over everything is triggering for me so god knows how trans people feel about it

 

[hitmouse]

There's the concept of plastic paddys, lots of fraught conversations about whether someone born in the states can call themselves Irish, or with other ethnicities for example whether someone of mixed heritage in the USA can call themselves Native American and where the cut off for that is. And usually the theoretical arguments point towards some other underlying issue and don't reflect the lived reality.

Eg accusations of "not really being Irish" in my experience tend to come from English people who are a bit jealous someone's participating in a culture that doesn't centre them. Or sometimes from other Irish people who are feeling insecure about that culture being watered down or worried about being drowned out by a few shouty voices. And in my generation young enough to not really remember the troubles there's not this understanding of the fact an Irish person living somewhere like England went through struggles (and still goes through struggles) someone who lived out their life out 'back home' didn't have to deal with, so someone who is from Ireland saying someone who is not from Ireland isn't Irish isn't necessarily the trump card they think it is. Because being Irish means different but overlapping things. But none of that means the notion of a plastic paddy is null and void, lived experience tells us it's definitely there. Just not in the way it's presented when there's some nasty gossiping going on in student halls or someone's posting outrage fuel on reddit.

Yeah, the race comparison is interesting because I had just seen a conversation about that this week, with some North American people (who I generally trust and respect and don't think were just shit-stirring for the sake of it) discussing how the role of "indigenous academic" tends to be taken by people who maybe have one indigenous grandparent, would probably "appear" as white in most contexts, and crucially don't have that lived experience of growing up in the grinding poverty on the reservations. I suppose it's all complicated further by the horrible stuff around adoption in Canada, which I suppose you could say created a kind of diaspora - someone who was forcibly removed from their family and raised in a white household is certainly someone who's been negatively affected by colonialism, to say the least, but also has a completely different set of experiences that someone who was raised on a reservation, like the different experiences of Irishness you mention. So I suppose some of this is about how far we can accept that one word describes multiple very different things?

 

[muscovyduck]

Yeah, the race comparison is interesting because I had just seen a conversation about that this week, with some North American people (who I generally trust and respect and don't think were just shit-stirring for the sake of it) discussing how the role of "indigenous academic" tends to be taken by people who maybe have one indigenous grandparent, would probably "appear" as white in most contexts, and crucially don't have that lived experience of growing up in the grinding poverty on the reservations. I suppose it's all complicated further by the horrible stuff around adoption in Canada, which I suppose you could say created a kind of diaspora - someone who was forcibly removed from their family and raised in a white household is certainly someone who's been negatively affected by colonialism, to say the least, but also has a completely different set of experiences that someone who was raised on a reservation, like the different experiences of Irishness you mention. So I suppose some of this is about how far we can accept that one word describes multiple very different things?

It's the same with class too. Who are scholarships to Oxford? Originally disadvantaged kids who already got lucky enough to be in the position to apply for it? Can you call someone in that position disadvantaged? And how does your own relationship with class affect how you are able to respond to that question?

 

[Serge Forward]

The 'No war but the class war' slogan/position in relation to Ukraine. Or pacifism maybe? Something a person might hold as an absolute, then then collapses in the face of a reality, that kind of thing you mean?

You mean like Kropotkin did in his less astute days. The reality was (and is) that before long you just end up calling for workers to head for the trenches to fight and kill their class brothers and sisters.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

There's the concept of plastic paddys, lots of fraught conversations about whether someone born in the states can call themselves Irish

Not entirely sure. I can't claim personal experience here, I have to go back either 3 (or maybe 4) generations to find one Scottish and one Welsh great (or great-great) grandparent

To some english people, someone who wasn't born here, or whose parents weren't born here, or who's got any mixed heritage, isn't english enough to be 'properly' english.

I'm not sure I want to agree with people who think like that, but I also don't think it's my place to tell someone of (say) scottish parentage who's lived most (or even all) of their life in england that they aren't scottish.

and seeing the expectation for me to start announcing my gender all over everything is triggering for me so god knows how trans people feel about it

do you mean putting your pronouns on things like your tweeter profile / e-mail signature?

My understanding is that's something that many trans people like to do, so that they don't get mis-gendered - and many non binary people prefer to be referred to as 'they / them' rather than either him / her

i've seen it argued that it shows a bit of solidarity, and makes it stand out less, if cis people also show their pronouns (and with some first names, it avoids uncertainty or assumptions)

I can't say that it's necessarily right, or that every trans / non-binary person agrees with it or does it. if you don't want to then i don't think you should be under any pressure to, but personally, i don't see the harm in it.

 

[muscovyduck]

Yeah, the race comparison is interesting because I had just seen a conversation about that this week, with some North American people (who I generally trust and respect and don't think were just shit-stirring for the sake of it) discussing how the role of "indigenous academic" tends to be taken by people who maybe have one indigenous grandparent, would probably "appear" as white in most contexts, and crucially don't have that lived experience of growing up in the grinding poverty on the reservations. I suppose it's all complicated further by the horrible stuff around adoption in Canada, which I suppose you could say created a kind of diaspora - someone who was forcibly removed from their family and raised in a white household is certainly someone who's been negatively affected by colonialism, to say the least, but also has a completely different set of experiences that someone who was raised on a reservation, like the different experiences of Irishness you mention. So I suppose some of this is about how far we can accept that one word describes multiple very different things?

and the problem is with "appearing" white (or in the UK I suppose it would be "appearing" British/English) is whose gaze we're talking about. Because going back to the Irish thing, some student in their early 20s isn't going to be able to idenitfy their English-accented mate as Irish but their professor and landlord probably will.

I suppose it's because there's so many people fighting over so few resources. Like the gender/sex things and toilets. Is it a coincidence that there is almost a linear correlation between people feeling the need to have a stance on trans people using restrooms and the general attack on access to toilets in public or the workplace that's been going on the past 15 years or so? Because it sort of feels like it is a coincidence but then is sort of feels like it isn't.

Even if accepting trans and non binary people were more oppressed and therefore invisible a couple decades ago, there would have still been single mothers with sons at an age too young to send them into a public loo on their own but too old for it to seem ok to bring them into the womens loo. There were definitely lesbians and gay men going through bullying when accessing gendered spaces due to homophobia. But I don't remember who can access which toilet being a thing everyone was expected to have a detailed position on. Maybe I have this wrong because I can't remember well that far back but I really don't remember it being such an overbearing debate back then.

 

[smokedout]

It's the same with class too. Who are scholarships to Oxford? Originally disadvantaged kids who already got lucky enough to be in the position to apply for it? Can you call someone in that position disadvantaged? And how does your own relationship with class affect how you are able to respond to that question?

I met someone who worked as a private tutor once whose main work was training rich kids to get scholarships for the top private schools partly to save money but also because it was felt it looked better on a CV to have gone to Eton on a scholarship rather than because your parents paid for it. So I'm not sure how many of those kids can truly be said to be disadvantaged.

On class I think it comes down to interests though. No matter what someone's background, if they end up running a company or a buy to let landlord their interests are different to mine, and they will likely act in those interests in most circumstances that count. Perhaps this is what causes resentments in other identities as well, and GC's suspect that trans women will act in men's interests as kinds of fifth columnists when in reality it is not in trans women's interests to act in that way, any more than it's in the interests of someone born into wealth who loses it all and ends up working in a factory to be anti-unions. If someone rich wants to identify as working class and gives all their money away and gets a manual job then do they stay upper/middle class? I'm sure a lot of people would perceive them as that, and they did have the choice I guess which is a privilege, but it doesn't change the lived experience they find themselves in or what subsequent oppression they face. Someone obviously working class who goes onto become rich and votes Tory whilst still identifying as working class is much more of a threat but that is a usually accepted identity.

(not really sure what point im trying to make, just thinking out loud)

 

[muscovyduck]

(not really sure what point im trying to make, just thinking out loud)

I think that's what we're all doing on this bit of the thread tbh

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I suppose it's because there's so many people fighting over so few resources. Like the gender/sex things and toilets. Is it a coincidence that there is almost a linear correlation between people feeling the need to have a stance on trans people using restrooms and the general attack on access to toilets in public or the workplace that's been going on the past 15 years or so? Because it sort of feels like it is a coincidence but then is sort of feels like it isn't.

Again, not sure.

A certain type of politics requires an 'other' group to stir up hate towards.

40 years ago, racism and homophobia in mainstream politics were much more acceptable than they are now, so is it more about a handy target rather than getting specific about bogs?

 

[muscovyduck]

Again, not sure.

A certain type of politics requires an 'other' group to stir up hate towards.

40 years ago, racism and homophobia in mainstream politics were much more acceptable than they are now, so is it more about a handy target rather than getting specific about bogs?

I think a lot of it is down to how the tabloid press make money. They made a lot of money debating whether celebrities were gay or not (I vividly remember a story about Dick and Dom) because it could be framed as a scandal. And when that style of homophobia was getting a bit stale a few years later they made loads of money debating Lady Gaga's genetalia. They lose a lot of money when the general public turn around and go "you know what, I'm not actually that bothered" about things like this

 

[smokedout]

Again, not sure.

A certain type of politics requires an 'other' group to stir up hate towards.

40 years ago, racism and homophobia in mainstream politics were much more acceptable than they are now, so is it more about a handy target rather than getting specific about bogs?

Yeah, and the existential threats are often a big part of that, so instead of the erasure of women it might be the Islamification of Europe, or being 'flooded' with migrants, or the great replacement stuff that's taken off in the US on the far right. It's a way of justifying gut prejudice - people think I don't like these people and wish they didnt exist and instead of unpacking that they start looking for justifications for that dislike.

 

[LDC]

You mean like Kropotkin did in his less astute days. The reality was (and is) that before long you just end up calling for workers to head for the trenches to fight and kill their class brothers and sisters.

How about the gap between seeing that bunch of Russian soldiers as fellow workers and class brothers under the NWBTCW banner, until you find out that they were the ones that dug the graves and killed the people in them Serge Forward?

 

[smokedout]

I think a lot of it is down to how the tabloid press make money. They made a lot of money debating whether celebrities were gay or not (I vividly remember a story about Dick and Dom) because it could be framed as a scandal. And when that style of homophobia was getting a bit stale a few years later they made loads of money debating Lady Gaga's genetalia. They lose a lot of money when the general public turn around and go "you know what, I'm not actually that bothered" about things like this

Money is a part of it, but I'm not sure it's the main motivator, in terms of newspaper sales at least. People like Murdoch and Dacre are socially conservative capitalists. They want a hard working compliant and consistent working class which is why they went so hard on claimants - if life on benefits is impossible, or people are ashamed to be on benefits then keeping wages low and working conditions shit is easier. And unlike more libertarian capitalists who see disruption as an opportunity to make money, they don't like it and worry it might upset the applecart and give the proles ideas, so different cultures, or models of relationships, or disruption to traditional understandings of gender or sexuality are perceived as a threat. Which makes a lot of sense, the world as it is is working absolutely fine for them so why would they want to change anything.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Money is a part of it, but I'm not sure it's the main motivator, in terms of newspaper sales at least. People like Murdoch and Dacre are socially conservative capitalists. They want a hard working compliant and consistent working class which is why they went so hard on claimants - if life on benefits is impossible, or people are ashamed to be on benefits then keeping wages low and working conditions shit is easier. And unlike more libertarian capitalists who see disruption as an opportunity to make money, they don't like it and worry it might upset the applecart and give the proles ideas, so different cultures, or models of relationships, or disruption to traditional understandings of gender or sexuality are perceived as a threat. Which makes a lot of sense, the world as it is is working absolutely fine for them so why would they want to change anything.

and simple 'divide and rule'- if they can turn bits of the working class against each other, then it stops the working class asking directing their attention towards the very rich...

 

[SpookyFrank]

40 years ago, racism and homophobia in mainstream politics were much more acceptable than they are now, so is it more about a handy target rather than getting specific about bogs?

Absolutely. The fact that trans folk are a (relatively) small group is ideal, as you can exaggerate the 'threat' they pose without much risk of them being able to meaningfully fight back. The, 'oh but not my neighbours because they're actually lovely' cognitive dissonance effect is also reduced if there are lots of people who never actually encounter trans folk.

 

[muscovyduck]

Money is a part of it, but I'm not sure it's the main motivator, in terms of newspaper sales at least. People like Murdoch and Dacre are socially conservative capitalists. They want a hard working compliant and consistent working class which is why they went so hard on claimants - if life on benefits is impossible, or people are ashamed to be on benefits then keeping wages low and working conditions shit is easier. And unlike more libertarian capitalists who see disruption as an opportunity to make money, they don't like it and worry it might upset the applecart and give the proles ideas, so different cultures, or models of relationships, or disruption to traditional understandings of gender or sexuality are perceived as a threat. Which makes a lot of sense, the world as it is is working absolutely fine for them so why would they want to change anything.

A lot of these theoretical positions seem to force us into corners where we end up fighting for conservative capitalists vs libertarian capitalists. There's a lot of people in the art industry producing nothing of worth making money and building their career off the back of trans creators right now. But its the creators who are visible so when hetronormative artists, or queer artists who don't define themselves as queer artists see where all the money is going all they're seeing the trans artist and not the 4 project coordinators and 2 managers they've somehow got on this one project.

 

[Winot]

I sort of do mean that, in that I think there is no immutable abiding self, though of course we do adopt identities and find meaning in them, it's just it's all contingent. Again, I don't think that's particularly germane to a discussion about how rights should be granted in society, and I think smokedout makes good points about how we agree to go along with people's self-identification in circumstances where others could deny it, but to me that is precisely the sort of social negotiation I mean.

Is this kind of like the reader defining the meaning of the work not the author or have I missed your point?

 

[JimW]

Is this kind of like the reader defining the meaning of the work not the author or have I missed your point?

Probably missed you point too but not quite that I don't think, because a social identity is already more than the work of one author alone, something like both a framework given by history and a process of change everyone's an actor in.

 

[Serge Forward]

How about the gap between seeing that bunch of Russian soldiers as fellow workers and class brothers under the NWBTCW banner, until you find out that they were the ones that dug the graves and killed the people in them Serge Forward?

But that's what happens in wars, which are by nature fratricidal. Largely working class people of one nationality set off to murder working class people of another nationality, all on behalf of their respective ruling classes. That's the reality and the rest (jingoism, socialist/anarcho trenchism) is the theory. So how do we respond to that realistically?

Yes, the Russian state is the aggressor while the Ukrainian population (and the young Russian cannon fodder) are the victims. Those caught up in it either fight, flee or play some kind of mutual aid/solidarity role. As there was no social movement in Ukraine to fight for, then my sense of reality would tell me to flee. Credit to the Karkhiv anarchists, though, who have stayed behind to provide basic support to the wider population. Less credit to those anarchists in Ukraine who joined the national defence, and null points to those pricks who joined Azov.

Credit goes to those Russian soldiers who deserted too, and in some instances, fragged their officers. Also credit to those involved in anti-war activity in Russia.

Realistically, as opposed to theoretically, you and I are more than a thousand miles from what's happening in Ukraine, and there is little either of us can do beyond basic solidarity stuff (which I guess we have both done in our own way) and say what we think on Urban75 and elsewhere. Now unless you're intending to head for the front line yourself, or call for the government or NATO to do more to help Ukraine, or have a mate who happens to be an arms dealer you can lean on, then your position is no more realistic than anyone else's. Me, I'll stick with my no war but the class war position, thanks.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

You don't necessarily need to flee because no social movement exists. Someone attacks your community, your entire community, and there is a strong possibility that you would feel the impulse to join with your neighbours and fight back. Your friends, acquaintances, relatives, work colleagues. That bloke that you say 'good morning' to every day when you're walking the dog, but you don't know his name. Even the parents of the friends of your kid that you once had a row with years ago and haven't spoken to in years. Even the guy around the corner who's in the Territorial Army. You don't need to invoke class war every time you do anything in life.

 

[LDC]

But that's what happens in wars, which are by nature fratricidal. Largely working class people of one nationality set off to murder working class people of another nationality, all on behalf of their respective ruling classes. That's the reality and the rest (jingoism, socialist/anarcho trenchism) is the theory. So how do we respond to that realistically?

Yes, the Russian state is the aggressor while the Ukrainian population (and the young Russian cannon fodder) are the victims. Those caught up in it either fight, flee or play some kind of mutual aid/solidarity role. As there was no social movement in Ukraine to fight for, then my sense of reality would tell me to flee. Credit to the Karkhiv anarchists, though, who have stayed behind to provide basic support to the wider population. Less credit to those anarchists in Ukraine who joined the national defence, and null points to those pricks who joined Azov.

Credit goes to those Russian soldiers who deserted too, and in some instances, fragged their officers. Also credit to those involved in anti-war activity in Russia.

Realistically, as opposed to theoretically, you and I are more than a thousand miles from what's happening in Ukraine, and there is little either of us can do beyond basic solidarity stuff (which I guess we have both done in our own way) and say what we think on Urban75 and elsewhere. Now unless you're intending to head for the front line yourself, or call for the government or NATO to do more to help Ukraine, or have a mate who happens to be an arms dealer you can lean on, then your position is no more realistic than anyone else's. Me, I'll stick with my no war but the class war position, thanks.

There's little (no?) social movement here either, would you flee from here as well? How about that actual being some pretty poor level of social solidarity, from those that claim to give that a high level of importance, with those that can't, or don't want to flee? Not condemning those that do of course, but nonetheless for arguments sake. I'm not sure I completely agree but someone I know made the point that post-war it's not going to look very good for all the anarchists in long term building trust and belief in their politics if what they all did was piss off abroad and call for the fighting to stop!

I generally agree what we do has little or no impact on what happens in Ukraine - although I don't think that means it's completely unimportant what we think, say, and do. I also think it's a bit of irrelevance and cop-out and lets one take any position without accepting how that might impact of what's happening there, or what it might mean for similar stuff here. I think it's a position of detached ideological purity that isn't the position you'd take if you were actually there often. I mean maybe that's fine if it's to make a bigger political point, but that feels a bit grim tbh.

If by taking this strict position of NWBTCW means then you wouldn't answer a call for material support to those fighting the Russian invasion (as I assume it would) then it does have an impact (albeit very small) especially if you are then saying this to others. I mean I assume you think no weapons or support should be supplied to anyone in Ukraine fighting? And that they should stop fighting? Surely that is the practical implication of the NWBTCW position?

And in other circumstances you'd support fighting, but only if you judged the conditions to be 'right' with some forms of social movement/class struggle taking the lead/having social power? But if so isn't that some weird programmatic 'when the conditions are right comrade' thing, rather than accepting we make conditions through our activity, or that we just have to deal with the reality we find ourselves in and try to make it better as best we can? And have you seen what LPR/DPR was like to live in for the last 8 years, a Russian defeat is definitely going to be better for people and any left wing force in Ukraine than a Russian victory.

You're by default telling all those fighting they're 'doing politics wrong'. Again I think it's OK to say that to people, that's what much of all politics is. But the reality of not fighting and not winning (or at least not losing) is what you see having happened in Bucha for example now the Russians have been driven out possibly across the whole country. Yes, of course fraternisation, demos, etc etc. and I of course agree the anti-war stuff in Russia is brilliant and brave. But also why draw a line between those things as legitimate and politically OK, and then picking up a weapon to fight as well when appropriate? Is seems sometimes the strict NWBTCW position shares more with pacifism than it might like.

 

[Serge Forward]

True Kevbad the Bad. As I've said elsewhere on here, it's totally understandable to stay and fight in defence of friends, family and neighbours, but if they're leaving already, then getting out of there seems reasonable.

 

[Serge Forward]

I agree LynnDoyleCooper that sadly Britain also has no viable social movements to defend, so I'd also be inclined to flee in that instance. I also realise that being in the middle of such a situation can also change attitudes. Like I say, we're more than a thousand miles away from it all, and who knows if our positions could be reversed if the same happened here? I hope I would remain NWBTCW but who can say?

 

[chilango]

To step back a little, for me, this is part of the attempt to figure out the meaning of knowledge, truth and reality. Ontolological and epistemological (yeah, I said it. What?) questions that have been argued, unresolved, for thousands of years.

Some of the current disputes could be viewed through the lens of crude constructivism vs. crude positivism.

But, so what?, The point, as some guy once almost said, is not just to interpret the world but to change it.

 

[Serge Forward]

Harpo? And also, this is the philosophy forum, so we're changing nowt

 

[LDC]

Harpo? And also, this is the philosophy forum, so we're changing nowt

How many anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb? etc etc.

 

[Serge Forward]

Anarchists want to smash the light bulb? The light bulb needs to autonomously change itself without the need for experts or leaders? Etc.

 

[Dystopiary]

True Kevbad the Bad. As I've said elsewhere on here, it's totally understandable to stay and fight in defence of friends, family and neighbours, but if they're leaving already, then getting out of there seems reasonable.

They won't all be. In those circumstances, some disabled and long term sick people would be left to rot. Of course your position might be to help those people to get out too, but in reality there are many cases where that's not going to be possible (eg, people who need very specific equipment or medication).

 

[Serge Forward]

They won't all be. In those circumstances, some disabled and long term sick people would be left to rot. Of course your position might be to help those people to get out too, but in reality there are many cases where that's not going to be possible (eg, people who need very specific equipment or medication).

Which is what the Kharkiv anarchists of the Assembly group seem to be doing. Kudos to them for that.

 

[Dystopiary]

Which is what the Kharkiv anarchists of the Assembly group seem to be doing. Kudos to them for that.

They do seem like sound people, yeah.